The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

As the rules currently stand, Harry's children will be Lord and Lady until his father ascends the thrown.

As will any of William's except the eldest son.

I know that but I didn't make it clear that I was refering to when Charles becomes king and they are entitled to be HRH.

When Diana was pregnant with William there was discussion about changing the line of succession for first born but as William was a boy it didn't happen.

I expect the discussion to arise again when William's wife is expecting but don't expect anything to happen until the first born child is a girl.

It would raise too many chances for the anti-monarchists to try to get rid of the monarchy altogether, or make other legislative changes as it would require debates in Parliament and also affects the passing of many other titles.

How fair is it for the throne to pass to females while other titles can only pass to males as it is? e.g. the Duke of York title can't pass to his daughters due to the Letters Patent. Maybe that needs to be considered along with changing who can be the monarch - why shouldn't a title pass to the daughters just because it was the norm in earlier times.

Unless Parliament is to change all inheritance laws I wouldn't support changing the inheritance laws for the monarch and as another poster said I think it would be harder for a Crown Princess to find a man prepared to give up his career etc for her than a Crown Prince to find a girl to give up her career. We still live in a world where the sexes are different and see their worth differently.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

I know this. The point I was trying to make though, is that Norway streamlined their RF so that there aren't multitudes of people with titles floating about.

But then Norway does not have an aristocracy, but Britain has. So if they downgrade their Royals where will this end? They can't get fruther down as to "Lady" Louise Mountbatten-Windsor as the girl is the daughter of an earl and any daughter of an earl has the right to use the style of "Lady" in Britain. Once you stop giving the male Royals titles of dukes, you downgrade them into the lower ranks of the nobility while other families keep their higher titles.

[Skydragon]

I'm not just a chromosomal faux pas

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...t19.xml&page=3

Equality Bill for royal daughters

Every peerage is governed by separate rules of succession depending on the terms of its creation and few allow for female heirs in the way that the monarchy does. (This is what I object to - skydragon).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...29/nroy29.html

Could British king marry a Muslim?

London - Playwright Alistair Beaton put Prime Minister Tony Blair on trial over the Iraq war. Now he wonders what would happen if a British monarch married a Muslim.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?f...9552520971B216

[Frothy]

Whilst the sexes are obviously different, I don't see them as having different worth. Indeed, a reform law for the throne should also cover peerages and arms. It will be a welcome reform and I am sure it will be brought in within the next ten years.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Whilst the sexes are obviously different, I don't see them as having different worth.

I don't either; its obvious the women can do the job as well as men and since its a ceremonial, non-political position without power, one could argue that women can do that type of position better than men.

If it were an elected position with a limited term, I would see no reason why a woman couldn't campaign for the job as well as a man. But a hereditary position for life means that every man knows right off the bat when he meets a crown princess that whoever marries her will take a subservient, powerless role for life. I think men's unwillingness to play second fiddle to a woman in general and especially to a woman in a figurehead role makes it much harder for the crown princesses who will inherit a crown for life to fulfill one of their duties in a hereditary system which is to marry suitably and provide an heir.

[Frothy]

Again, I do not agree. There is no need or duty to "produce an heir" - there will already be an heir, be it a sister, brother, cousin or whatever. And I think in the modern world most young mothers work too, so the "career" of head of state-ship should no more prevent a sua juris Princess of Wales than it prevented HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh having plenty of princelings...

The man will have plenty of compensations; the love of his wife, the prestige of the inevitable princedom, raising the next monarch, oh, and a life of eternal comfort and luxury. He can have his own charitable "career" as much as he wishes. Ought we to insult young women in order to flatter the egos of men? I think not... I will welcome the reform when it, in my view inevitably, comes in a few years.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Again, I do not agree. There is no need or duty to "produce an heir" - there will already be an heir, be it a sister, brother, cousin or whatever. And I think in the modern world most young mothers work too, so the "career" of head of state-ship should no more prevent a sua juris Princess of Wales than it prevented HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh having plenty of princelings...

However, that can mean that the throne can be inherited by someone who was not trained for the role. Right now, Prince Albert of Monaco is not married, has no child as heir and there is a lot of speculation surrounding the throne of Monaco because his eldest sister Caroline was never raised to assume the responsibilities and her eldest son Andrea does not look like he's been trained for any responsibilities. Monaco's situation is not the ideal situation.

Also Albert's reputation has also taken a nosedive because of the public's assumption by his single state that he is irresponsible and unwilling to commit which may or may not be true. A crown princess or Queen Regnant that remains unmarried will face even harsher criticism than Albert.

[Frothy]

I think that Monaco undernines that argument itself. Albert was "trained to rule" and what a disgrace he is! Playboy, ever-changing succession of arm candy, children out of wedlock, attempts to deny paternity until caught by a DNA test... they could hardly have worse, could they?

Caroline appears to be a sober woman in a royal marriage and would make a good heir.

Who in fact is the present heir to Monaco?

[Oppie]

Heir to Monaco - Caroline followed by her sons then daughter then Stephaine her son and daughter.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Frothy

I think that Monaco undernines that argument itself. Albert was "trained to rule" and what a disgrace he is! Playboy, ever-changing succession of arm candy, children out of wedlock, attempts to deny paternity until caught by a DNA test... they could hardly have worse, could they?

Caroline appears to be a sober woman in a royal marriage and would make a good heir.

Who in fact is the present heir to Monaco?

Well if Albert undermines the argument of male primogeniture, he also undermines the argument for a hereditary system to begin with because unless you elect a person, there's no guarantee that the heir will live up to the job whether they are a man or a woman.

The idea of a hereditary monarchy is a bit archaic to begin with because hereditary not a person's own worth is the determining factor of who gets the job.

Your argument for cognitive primogeniture changes the nature of the arbitrariness but doesn't change the underlying arbitrary influence of heredity on the system.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Removal of the monarch as Head of the Church (separation btw Church and State)

Isn't it true that even if the monarch's title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" were removed, the Archbishop of Canterbury would still remain the Head of the Church and the Church would still be an established one?
If so, that one action (removal of the monarch's title) wouldn't be enough to constitute a separation between Church and State.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Isn't it true that even if the monarch's title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" were removed, the Archbishop of Canterbury would still remain the Head of the Church and the Church would still be an established one?
If so, that one action (removal of the monarch's title) wouldn't be enough to constitute a separation between Church and State.

I think you are right, it would not separate the church and state!

[Claire]

I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.
He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed. It depends on his own family whether he will do the same to Princess Anne and Andrew and his children. If William and Harry is married - they will also not be needed. So the royal family will simply be - the current Wales family with spouses.
I expect the family to be media savvy. Otherwise saying they will live out of the hands of the press. This is not to say that this will be good as I expect the Wales to have more problems then they have already faced in the future.

Andrew and Anne could possibly go on to jobs in the UN. It might work well. Anne could do her Save the Children full time. I expect that Beatrice and Eugenie will became fully American probably marry there and raise their family there. Edward and Sophie could possibly do something similiar and the possiblities are endless for Louise.
I only feel sorry for the elder members of the royal family. They are too old to start something new. Maybe Charles will let them continue doing engagements till their deaths.
I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.

I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada and after that they will no longer be the figurehead of the Commonwealth. I expect the monarchy to be dissolved within a decade of the Queen's death. The reign of Prince Charles and William will be in final death knell.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by Claire

I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.

Huh? Why bother with the crowning if she isn't Queen?

Originally Posted by Claire

He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed.

I'm not sure exactly how you fire royalty. I can certainly see the Queen's generation scaling back their activities. I don't think 70 year old Princess Alexandra is going to have to go out and get a job.

Originally Posted by Claire

I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.

Balmoral and Sandringham are private (much loved) property. They have never belonged to the government. Why would Charles give them away. He could sell them if he wanted to, but I don't see that happening.

Originally Posted by Claire

I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada...

I don't think it will happen in Canada. There isn't a demand for it to happen. It would also be near impossible to accomplish because of our constituion.

[Next Star]

It seems I am not the only one who believes the eldest child regardless of sex should the heir to the throne and not the middle child or the youngest child because their were born male. Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not there are aspects that the British people would love to see Charles passed over as king and William succeed his grandmother as king. Some commonwealth nations will want to become a sovereign nation and be totatlly free from Britain after Elizabeth II passes on because then Charles would be king. All members should be trained to be head of state because you never know oiu just might inherit the throne example (Elizabeth II the woman we are talking about she was not even suppose to be queen but being her uncle Edward abdicated in favor of marrying an American divorcee making her father George become king and her becoming heiress-presumptive to the British throne. I don't think the monarchy will last that long after Elizabeth's death she was the one keeps the family and monarchy from not looking totallly ruined and when she's gone that's gone with her.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Next Star

Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not there are aspects that the British people would love to see Charles passed over as king and William succeed his grandmother as king.

Where did you see this information published? There are a few Diana diehards who would like nothing more but, IMO, most British people in favour of the monarchy, want Charles to succeed his mother.

Some commonwealth nations will want to become a sovereign nation and be totatlly free from Britain after Elizabeth II passes on because then Charles would be king.

Possibly, but for many it is just a natural break and has very little to do with Charles.

I don't think the monarchy will last that long after Elizabeth's death she was the one keeps the family and monarchy from not looking totallly ruined and when she's gone that's gone with her.

Again, IMO, the monarchy is something most Brits are proud of and it will still be here when Williams children are adults.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

Huh? Why bother with the crowning if she isn't Queen?

I think it's much more likely that this whole Princess Consort thing might be a way for her to become Queen without being crowned, not the other way round. If she is legally not Queen, she can't be crowned.

I'm not sure exactly how you fire royalty. I can certainly see the Queen's generation scaling back their activities. I don't think 70 year old Princess Alexandra is going to have to go out and get a job.

You wouldn't exactly fire them; it'd just be a case of issuing letters patent restricting the royal family (i.e., the people eligible to be HRH) to the current monarch and his children and grandchildren (or eldest son of the Prince of Wales), or even restricting it to anyone who's ever been the child of a monarch, and not grandfathering in the current royals who are grandchildren of George VI and Elizabeth II. That would automatically remove the HRHs from the Gloucesters, the Kents, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra, the York girls, and Lady Louise (even though she isn't called HRH, she's still entitled to it under the present situation). Some people lost their HRHs under the 1917 letters patent, and there'd be nothing to stop it happening again. These people haven't been covered by the Civil List for several years now, so there wouldn't be an issue with having to get that altered.

Balmoral and Sandringham are private (much loved) property. They have never belonged to the government. Why would Charles give them away. He could sell them if he wanted to, but I don't see that happening.

Nor do I, but it's always possible. He could donate them to the government or just make them available to the government or something. Osborne House, Marlborough House, The Royal Pavilion at Brighton, and Carlton House are no longer royal residences, so there's a precedent.

[Next Star]

You have your believes and I have mine this will not change period the fact is that some people have rallied against the monarchy wanting an republic so the people can elect their leader. Suveries have been taking about rather would the people of Britain chose William over Charles as king some said yes. I not a fan of Charles but I believe in tradition so he should inherit the throne after his mother's passed on but deep down I wish William cold inherit the throne instead but then that would break thradition I wait and see what will happen to this monarchy .

[Elspeth]

Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not

News to me, I must say (the latter comment, not the former).